The AntiChris

Intensity

Only because your question is so vague and ambiguous.

Also, you dismiss individual arguments as being irrational on the basis that they are apparently inconsistent with other practices accepted as "normal" within western society. This assumes that each individual accepts these societal inconsistencies uncritically - I doubt that this is actually the case.

Chris

99Percent

Intensity: There is no objective morality.

Then how do you expect us to rationally convince you that children should not be sexually exploited?

If you don't accept objective morality as true then there is no rational way to argue with you. Only appeals to emotions, empathy, or through violent means can we achieve a practical conclusion.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by HelenM:
With all due respect, the examples you gave of 'abuse' are far different from what others have experienced.

I only mentioned the one that effected me most.

I think it's unwise to generalize that other people - whose experiences may be far worse than yours - would have no worse after-effects from them than you had from yours.

I don't generalise, I ask them.

Nevertheless I'm glad you haven't experienced ongoing difficult after-effects from yours. And I'm not saying it's not 'abuse'. I'm just saying, it comes in way worse forms than what you described.

I'm not going to describe any of the forms of "sexual abuse" I've supposedly suffered because people who know me may put two and two together so to speak, suffice to say that several people could be jailed because of them! Ley's just say that I don't consider them to be abuse in the same way as other more painful mental and physical abuse I've suffered. Oh and I've suffered far worse as an adult at the hands of several women I wish I'd never met!

Oh and just to ease any confusion I am most definitely male.

Amen-Moses

Ted Hoffman

Helen,

Helen said: This seems to amount to "I wouldn't want it to happen to my own children [or any child I care about] so it's wrong".

That's pretty basic. I think that's implicit in what everyone here is saying.

If that is what everyone here is saying, I would still not agree with them. You missed the HUGE point which I put in bold:

Intensity: "...So its essentially an act that thwarts its own purpose. [Therefore its wrong]"

Helen said: Why is it more rational when Kant writes it than when everyone here says it?

It isn't more rational when Kant writes it. No one here said its an act that goes contrary to its own purpose. Some have said (tronvillain for example) - "Its immoral because I can ract with violence against anyone who perpetrates it", "Its immoral because I don't like it" (to which a padeophile can also say "Its moral because it pleases me"), "its immoral because its unethical". The arguments offered earlier were all internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, employing double standards, based on a parochial perspective and counterproductive.

Helen said: If all you wanted was "I wouldn't be happy if it happened to my own kids so it's wrong" then it would have helped had you said so 12 pages ago.

This is a strawman and a glaring parody of my purpose in starting this thread. Your have diminished the basis of my argument to one idea it draws from. It is incorrect to present this idea as my argument.

Helen said: Everyone is trying to explain WHY they wouldn't want it to happen to kids they care about and you have said their reasons are not good enough.

Their reasons weren't good enough. And they still aren't good enough. My argument relies on the basis that people (padeophiles included) wouldn't want their children to be used sexually, but that in itself IS NOT my argument.

Because if that were the argument, it would only present a conflict of interest between people (protecting their kids) and the padeophiles (who derive pleasure from using children sexually). So it would be a might makes right situation. The padeophiles would lose that war (due to their minority status) but that in itself would not make padeophilia wrong. IMHO.

Helen said: Therefore logically you should also reject your application of what Kant says because you are simply taken as a given that parents don't want their own kids sexually exploited. There's no reason at all given in what you said above. Let alone an irrational one. If we have to give reasons that are rational why can you accept it as a given in your own post?

I hope you are now in a position to redress this question from a new perspective.

Helen said: So, what you won't accept with reasons from anyone else, you've strangely assumed as a given in your own post, without any reasons!

That seems very inconsistent to me.

It would seem inconsistent to anyone who has shares with you a similar and incorrect understanding to what my argument was. But that is because you failed to grasp my main argument and latched upon its parody.

Helen said: Do you see what I'm saying?

Only too well. But what you are saying is based upon a misconception of what my argument was. I hope you will re-evaluate what you have said now.

AntiChris

Also, you dismiss individual arguments as being irrational on the basis that they are apparently inconsistent with other practices accepted as "normal" within western society. This assumes that each individual accepts these societal inconsistencies uncritically - I doubt that this is actually the case.

Thank you for accurately stating my argument. I think this is the case. Morality is one area people are most uncritical about. To be critical about moral issues often means being critical about society. Not very many can be critical about the society. Its their home. Safety, security, acceptance, social outlook are all built upon what the society is. To shake the society is tantamount to threatening all those benefits the individual gets from the society: their very being.

Largely, its because of inertia and fear of change. People would rather cling onto the old, unreasoned values - because of the benefits they get from them, NOT because of their rational justifications.

99Percent,

Then how do you expect us to rationally convince you that children should not be sexually exploited?

By demonstrating that the act is wrong since it does not achieve the results it is purportedly meant to achieve.

If you don't accept objective morality as true then there is no rational way to argue with you. Only appeals to emotions, empathy, or through violent means can we achieve a practical conclusion.

I hope you re-evaluate this statement based on my answer above.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

HelenM

I did see that.

Please allow me to try to identify the inconsistency I see in your posts/arguments, another way...please bear with me because I'm focusing on the same inconsistency but perhaps I did not express it clearly before so I will start over rather than trying to get there from my last post to you.

Essentially: it seems to me that your responses to other posts render Kant's argument inapplicable

I understand Kant's argument as applied to s.e. of kids to be : it's for pleasure; I would get no pleasure out of doing it to my kids because I think it's hurtful to them; therefore the pleasure purpose is thwarted in the case of me and my kids; therefore I can see, through universalizing that it's wrong.

If I am already misunderstanding feel free to point that out, of course...

You have argued in response to many posts: it is not hurtful to kids

(or need not be, if we weren't conditioned to think it so, or if it was done with appropriate - gentleness (yeesh ) etc)

(and I understand that this is for argument's sake and is not to be construed as you advocating s.e. of kids)

Your argument it is not hurtful to kids would imply that anyone who thinks it is hurtful to their own kids, is being irrational.

Therefore Kant's argument/principle is inapplicable, because a rational person would not see it as hurting their kids according to your own arguments and therefore it would not thwart their pleasure to s.e. their own kids.

Ok, this time do you see my point?

What have I missed/misunderstood?

take care
Helen

p.s. The title of this thread is: Why shouldn't children be Sexually exploited?

Kant's argument depends on it being wrong/hurtful to s.e. kids so it assumes the answer already: "because it's wrong" or "because I can see it's wrong/hurtful when I think of s.e.ing my own kids".

p.p.s. Intensity I apologize for any mischaracterizing of your arguments that I did in my last post. Just so you know that I didn't start all over just so I could avoid saying "I'm wrong" and/or "I apologize"

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

The AntiChris

Intensity

Your 'Kant argument' seems to depend on the notion that parents' unwillingness to allow their children to be used sexually by other adults is in some sense universal or objective:

You claim that because of this 'universality', the actions of paedophiles are therefore logically inconsistent ("So its essentially an act that thwarts its own purpose") and can be justifiably condemned.

You appear to be attempting to reduce moral judgements to pure rationality by eliminating any emotional content. However, your argument depends on emotion (empathy for our offspring) for it to work.

At the end of your 'Kant' post you ask:

If you're asking if this is what we really do when we make moral judgements, then I have no doubt that you are wrong. I suspect that we make judgements based on the consequences of an act; the intentions of the moral agent are usually irrelevant or at least of secondary consideration.

If you're suggesting that this is how moral judgements ought to be made, then I'd have to disagree. It's unnecessarily convoluted in that the intentions of the moral agent are superfluous in your 'moral calculation'. If you remove "purpose" from the calculation, you're basically judging the consequences of the act and assuming that we all share at least some 'universal' desires/values to enable us to make a judgement.

Alternative to the 'Kant' Argument

I think there is a far simpler argument:

Most people want to minimise the suffering of their children ("most people" here represents as close as we can get to objectivity). Most people believe that the use of their children sexually by adults may cause their children to suffer (either actual or potential harm). Paedophiles use children sexually and so their activities can therefore be justifiably condemned.

It seems to me the only thing that is at issue here is whether parents are justified in their belief that "sexual use by adults" will necessarily cause suffering (either actual or potential harm).

This of course depends on the particular nature of the "sexual use" and the specifics of the children involved (age, sexual development etc).

Isn't it really as simple as that?

Chris

HelenM

Amen-Moses

Thanks for your comments.

I apologize - I think I misconstrued you to be saying that the worst sexual abuse you experienced was being told a flasher was nearby, but not seeing that person.

I didn't realize you'd been through other things but were being discreet.

take care
Helen

atrahasis

wrong login

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

atrahasis

wrong login

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Helen

Helen: You have argued in response to many posts: it is not hurtful to kids

No I did NOT. I disagreed with the arguments put forth stating that it is bad because it is hurtful to kids because those same arguments can also be used against immoralizing sex with adults.
What I also implied IN ADDITION was that it is NOT NECESSARILY necessarily hurtful to children. It MUST however be hurtful to very young childreb (oh horror!).

Helen: Ok, this time do you see my point?

Again, I see your point and it is incorrect. Because when you say: "Your argument it is not hurtful to kids would imply that anyone who thinks it is hurtful to their own kids, is being irrational." it means you still missed my point.

I did not make judgemental statements about the people advancing arguments ("you are being irrational", "you are being rational" etc).

I addressed arguments that were advanced to argue that sexual use of children is wrong.
I did not say it is irrational to say it is hurtful to kids: I said its invalid to use it as an argument to support the idea that sexual use of children is wrong because it can also be painful for adults and we dont use that reason to say sex with adults is immoral.

Secondly, I also argued that it does not have to be painful to children (say a twelve year old). NOTE that I did not deny its hurtful to kids: I just said it is NOT NECESSARILY hurtful.

And Oh, Helen?
Your apologies have been accepted.

The AntiChris

Thank you for your insightful comments.

The AntiChris posted :You appear to be attempting to reduce moral judgements to pure rationality by eliminating any emotional content. However, your argument depends on emotion (empathy for our offspring) for it to work.

This is a correct observation that I was "attempting to reduce moral judgements to pure rationality by eliminating any emotional content". However the act of using children for sex, is an emotional act too and the way forward would then be to see whether the emotion is being handled correctly. (I define a desire as an emotion that accompanies an unsatisfied state).

So, logically, if the emotion that propels the action does not achieve its desired (whether cosnciously or unconsciously) effect, then the action is wrong. Moreover if the act creates emotional distress to the person with the initial emotion or desire.

The AntiChris posted :If you're asking if this is what we really do when we make moral judgements, then I have no doubt that you are wrong. I suspect that we make judgements based on the consequences of an act; the intentions of the moral agent are usually irrelevant or at least of secondary consideration.

This is altruism. However, the consequences (short term) of sexual use of children is pleasure (sexual gratification) so if padeophiles are to consider the consequences of their acts, they will continue sexually using children. Because it works for them.

Thats why they have to be forced to consider having a taste of their own medicene: universalizing the act.

And your explanation about how moral agents operate ("that we make judgements based on the consequences of an act; the intentions of the moral agent are usually irrelevant or at least of secondary consideration") can only work for altruistic people who consider their selfish needs secondary. What about selfish people?
They wouldn't ascribe to similar maxims. So then its important to demonstrate that the act would hurt the perpetrators themselves.

And thus the act becomes wrong. Even in their own eyes.

The AntiChris posted :If you remove "purpose" from the calculation, you're basically judging the consequences of the act and assuming that we all share at least some 'universal' desires/values to enable us to make a judgement.

Without purpose, there would be no need to act, and thus no need for morality at all. So the locus of morality and ethics is purpose. Any dialectics on morality cannot divorce purpose.

The AntiChris posted :If you're suggesting that this is how moral judgements ought to be made, then I'd have to disagree. It's unnecessarily convoluted in that the intentions of the moral agent are superfluous in your 'moral calculation'

They are indeed superfluous. It is said the way to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is also the saying that an iota of good is better than a world of good intentions.

It's about what is practical. We live in a practical world. If the practical results of the so-called moral agents are bad, then their actions are wrong, their tons and tons or good intentions notwithstanding.

The AntiChris posted :Alternative to the 'Kant' Argument
......
......
Paedophiles use children sexually and so their activities can therefore be justifiably condemned.


Like I said before, this is a might makes right morality - its herd mentality.
I am strongly of the idea that its more logical to declare the sexual use of children as wrong because the action works against its intended purpose. Not because it makes the rest of humanity unhappy, they could be unhappy for the wrong reasons (for example because they beleive that sexual use of children will make their children insane). Unless of course he is willing to subjugate his needs to do as the majority pleases.

The AntiChris posted : It seems to me the only thing that is at issue here is whether parents are justified in their belief that "sexual use by adults" will necessarily cause suffering (either actual or potential harm).

This is very true. And this was the purpose of the thread, but later I thought since the act is engineered by an emotion and has some form of objective, I decided to apply Kants universalization.

I havent come against good reasons so far ( for "whether parents are justified in their belief that 'sexual use by adults' will necessarily cause suffering'). But I have come against good reasons why the padeophile should find it wrong to use children sexually.

About your question, I think its got something to do with parental protective instinct and a territorial psychology. And more importantly, our view on sexuality and the whole question of sex.

The AntiChris posted :This of course depends on the particular nature of the "sexual use" and the specifics of the children involved (age, sexual development etc).

Isn't it really as simple as that?

I think it is.

But at this point, the original question can be bifurcated:

1. Why is it wrong for people (not necessarily padeophiles) to use children sexually?

2. Why does society (non padeophiles and anti padeophiles) think sexual use of children is wrong?

Question 1, I beleive has been answered.

I would appreciate cogent answers for question 2 (let me add here that the kids being considered are those between 8 and 17 years). But I dont think there are any. Most of the arguments I have seen so far can be worked around.
The huge obstacle to getting a rational explanation to Q2 is peoples self-righteous indignation at the question itself. Familiarity with extreme examples (those that hit the news headlines) has also seriously crippled any ability to be objective and rational about the question.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>